On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote:
If you mean that it only takes 1 verify vote for any version of an update
to publish an update (across all versions) than I stand by what I said.
Otherwise, I'd have to ask that you clarify what you mean.
Yes, this is what I said. It currently requires 1 verify vote to
VERIFY one version (in the past, the rules said two for each, but
packages never got out that way so it has been taken down to 1).
What I say is that if folks don't care enough to report their
successes or problems within two weeks of someone formally first test
of the package, they deserve what they get.
That said, I could also live with two verify votes (for any version)
plus the similar timeout, but I think timeliness is more important.
Patches are typically very similar across all the
versions. The sanity of the patches has already been checked at
PUBLISH. Checking that the program actually works in one platform is
definitely better than nothing.
I didn't read your statement that way earlier. If you mean we get enough
verify votes for a version, then publish the rest, fine. But I thought
you said if we have one, single, lonely vote we should publish just
because of a timeout, which is bad.
FYI, one verify vote is sufficient to VERIFY a distro version right
now, so this is why I said one measly verify vote.
For example, one of our first (if not our first) kernel updates published
had to be immediately re-issued. It was verified by several people, so
it should have been good. But all testers tested it with grub, and the
problem was in lilo. So we need to have a larger number of people voting,
to make sure we cover enough cases to allow the QA testing to be at all
reasonable. Even with our current system, errors get through because
the testing sample just isn't big enough. So I'm against anything that
in principle allows us to publish with less testing in less-diverse
environments.
We can't avoid these errors completely by testing, because there just
aren't enough people willing to do the testing and report the errors.
We'll just have to publish and revise if something breaks.
If you want commercial support, buy it from Red Hat or Progeny or someone.
Otherwise, if you want "free" support you have to "work" for it.
Personally, I think this is a good principle. You may also get free
support without any work, but you surely don't get the right to
complain about it unless you contribute.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--
fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
